Answer
Salam Dear Brother,
Thank you very much for your questions and for contacting Ask About Islam.
Indeed the questions you have asked about Islam betray grievous misunderstandings on your part derived chiefly from orchestrated misinformation currently spread in your country as well as in the world at large by vested interests.
You have said: “in India, all the people are secular, and, there is enough brotherhood and unity among all the communities that is required in the growth of humanity in India.”
As any educated person in touch with the reality in India knows, this is not true. You may say that a considerable number of Indians are secular. But surely the supporters of “the Sangh Parivar” – and they are not a minority – who demolished the Babari Masjid are not secular.
How can the Chief Minister of Gujarat who colluded with radical Hindutva forces in the Gujarat massacre of Muslims in 2002 pose as the future Prime Minister, if India is areally secular country?
And as for brotherhood and unity: Praful Bidwai the noted Indian journalist writes:
“Oppression of the 160 to 180 million Dalits, who are viewed as being too low to even be part of the caste system, is one of the most repelling, but enduring, realities of the Indian countryside. Equally oppressive is the violence perpetrated against them, especially their women.
To be a Dalit today means having to live in a subhuman, degraded, insecure fashion: Every hour, two Dalits are assaulted. Every day, three Dalit women are raped, and two killed. In most parts of India, Dalits continue to be barred from entering Hindu temples or other holy places – although doing so is against the law. Their women are banned from wearing shoes in the presence of caste Hindus. Dalit children often suffer a form of apartheid at school by being made to sit at the back of the classroom.” [i]
The essence of being secular is the attitude of tolerance towards other religions. (Of course, we do not consider here the primary meaning of ‘secular’ as ‘nonreligious’ or ‘worldly’.) From the point of view of the Indian constitution, secularism means maintaining neutrality among religions: that the government or the administration should have no partiality for any religion.
As far as the citizens are concerned, being secular does not mean that one should not follow any religion; it only means that one should allow the same right one enjoys for practicing their religion, should be g
ranted to others as well – that there should be tolerance and consideration for one another. This is the attitude approved by Islam: The Quran (which Muslims believe to be the Word of God) categorically states:
{There shall be no coercion in matters of religion} (Quran 2:256).
Nonetheless it is true that there are many ‘Muslims’ who fall short of the teachings of Islam, just as there are many Hindus who do not follow the teachings of Hinduism. But that is not the fault of Islam or Hinduism.
A human is a human first, and then a Muslim or Hindu or Christian. That is true of all humans, not only of Indians; and none can claim it as a virtue by itself. The Shari’a law does not prescribe death penalty for non-Muslims or the Shia community as you have alleged. The death penalty or any penalty for that matter is meant only for the ones who are convicted of a crime – whether Muslim or non-Muslim.
No country if it follows Islamic Shari’a can execute people simply because they are Shia, Kurdis
h etc. You have said that you saw a video showing the execution of persons for simply belonging to the Shia community in Syria and Iran.
Syria does not have a state religion; it does not claim to be an Islamic state; and its atrocities are not in the name of Islam. The Syrian government, as can be seen from the present turmoil, has little support from the people. And as Muslims we do not justify the atrocities committed by any regime anywhere, whether it is in the name of Islam or not.
As for Iran, its people as well as the rulers are Shia. If your video shows that the Shia government executes Shia people for being Shia, it is not to be trusted. It shows the extent of disinformation aimed at spewing hatred on Islam and Muslims! Ours is an age of media manipulation, spin and hype, as is noted by a well-known media analyst:
“This is the age of the fake. We live in an era where the gap between how the world is and how powerful interests try to portray it has grown dramatically wider. Virtually nothing in public debate these days is free of the virus of fakery….In recent years the fakes have become more sophisticated, so that the distinction between fake and real is less easy to discern.” [ii]
The Shari’a does no disrespect to women by punishing them for being women. If a woman is guilty of a crime, what do the modern governments do? Do they condone the crime because they are women?
As for the prohibition of alcohol: The Quran, which clearly prohibits the use of alcohol mentions that there are some benefits to be derived from alcohol too. So Islam does not prohibit any medicine that contains alcohol; and your jibe at the use of medicines by Muslims is completely out of place. The prohibition of alcoholic drinks is owing to their deleterious effect on people’s health as well as on their mind. People take to drinks for getting a “kick”. But one can see the harm drinks do.
There was a report in the news of a man who was murdered by his son. Every evening he came to the house under the influence of drinks and lashed out at his wife; one day he tried to molest his own daughter and the son took an axe and cut his father down.
Most crimes are done by persons under the influence of drinks. Hired criminals, it is widely known, take to drinks to numb their conscience before they do their atrocious deeds.Drunken driving has been recognized as a world menace, based on the statistics which reveal that road accidents cause 1.2 million deaths and 50 million injuries around the world each year. [iii]
Even the United States had once prohibited alcohol. The ban was in force from 1920 to 1933. In a country where alcoholic drinks are prohibited, it is certainly a punishable offence to brew, sell, or drink alcohol. And the penal code prescribes appropriate punishments to those who are guilty of the crime.
The severity of the punishment depends on the severity of the crime (as viewed by the authorities) under any dispensation. Islamic law prohibits alcoholic drinks. The violation of this prohibition demands an appropri
ate punishment in view of the harm it does to individuals, to the family and to society at large.
The Quran has not mentioned any specific punishment for this abomination; it has only prohibited alcoholic drinks; but the Prophet ordered punishment for a person for violating this prohibition. Today a country that bases its legal system on the Shari’a may adopt the same punishment for its violation; but certainly it is not for women alone as you allege. It is for all the guilty ones – men and women.
Ahmedinejad must have made a claim for Islam, as he was the President of an Islamic Republic, just as a Socialist President can make a claim for socialism. In an Islamic state the Shari’a is the Law and any Muslim citizen who leaves Islam is committing treason or a crime against the state. Recently in South India a man was arrested for liking a face book page of Pakistan lovers. The reason is that he is an Indian citizen and so he has no right to like a page declaring the love for another country. I don’t know what punishment will be meted out to him. But the charge against him is that he committed a crime close to treason.
You have asked why Islam allows severe punishment if it is a peaceful religion. It is indeed a paradox that for the establishment of peace, we need to use force. So in all countries, some persons (convicted criminals) are denied freedom by confining them to prisons, for the sake of safeguarding the freedom of the majority. This is necessary for peace and security.
Similar is the case of war. Peaceful people are often compelled to fight for their very existence in the face of blatant aggression or oppression. Unless there is in the world a small band of people at the least, who are ready to fight and even lay down their lives for the sake of justice, peace will not prevail. Because, peace without justice is like a smoking volcano. We need to fear its eruption any moment.
You have mentioned that in Muslim countries the Shari’a is only for ordinary people and the rulers are above it. This is quite possible, as rulers or leaders are often corrupt and they misuse their position to escape the law. This happens in any system.
And lastly the question is why non-Muslims are not allowed in Makkah. You claim that a person irrespective of his religion can visit any temple in India freely. This is not true. I am told that in front of several temples you can see the notice: “No entry for non-Hindus.” And as has been stated by Praful Bidwai (quoted above), dalits are denied permission to enter the temples of upper caste Hindus.
Coming to the question of Makkah: The Kaaba in Makkah is not just a mosque. It is the sacred san
ctuary of Islam to which all mosques are oriented and all Muslims turn for prayer five times a day. And it is to Makkah Muslims flock for Hajj once a year and for the lesser pilgrimage of Umrah throughout the year.
The Quran has declared Makkah a place of safety and security for the Muslims of the world. For these reasons, the leaders of Islam decided that Makkah (as well as Madinah the seat of the Prophet’s Mosque) should be open only to those who are committed to honor the sanctity and security of those places.
Clearly non-Muslims do not believe in the religious meaning and significance of the sanctuary, and therefore do not feel any inner compulsion or need to protect its purity and guard it from defilement or desecration. So it is only reasonable that for the safety and security of the sanctuaries as well as of the pilgrims who gather there from all parts of the world, admission to these places is restricted to the believers.
I hope this addresses your concerns.
Salam and please keep in touch.
References:
i See more at:http://www.indiatogether.org/dalit/articles/bidwai1002.htm#sthash.26EoskyA.dpuf
ii David Miller, The age of the fake, Spin Watch, March 14, 2005